Seems to me like this contradicts all the people who said nobody will be required to conduct gay weddings.

They are a for-profit business, as the article explicitly notes.

"For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit," Warren Wilson with the Coeur d"Alene City Attorney"s Office said"."

"If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you"re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation," Wilson said."

It also says "in theory"-- it's a grey area of law, at present, and no one has been prosecuted. So they are not required to, nor are we certain they will be. But even if they are, they are not ministers in the sense of running a church, which is not an area of public accomodation, but rather in running a wedding business, which is something else entirely.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

Seems to me like this contradicts all the people who said nobody will be required to conduct gay weddings.

They are a for-profit business, as the article explicitly notes.

"For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit," Warren Wilson with the Coeur d"Alene City Attorney"s Office said"."

"If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you"re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation," Wilson said."

It also says "in theory"-- it's a grey area of law, at present, and no one has been prosecuted. So they are not required to, nor are we certain they will be. But even if they are, they are not ministers in the sense of running a church, which is not an area of public accomodation, but rather in running a wedding business, which is something else entirely.

The issue is not the institution being forced to do so (although I would argue that is wrong as well). The problem is that the ministers are now being forced to marry. Does that not seem like a problem?

Seems to me like this contradicts all the people who said nobody will be required to conduct gay weddings.

They are a for-profit business, as the article explicitly notes.

"For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit," Warren Wilson with the Coeur d"Alene City Attorney"s Office said"."

"If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you"re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation," Wilson said."

It also says "in theory"-- it's a grey area of law, at present, and no one has been prosecuted. So they are not required to, nor are we certain they will be. But even if they are, they are not ministers in the sense of running a church, which is not an area of public accomodation, but rather in running a wedding business, which is something else entirely.

The issue is not the institution being forced to do so (although I would argue that is wrong as well). The problem is that the ministers are now being forced to marry. Does that not seem like a problem?

First: They are NOT being forced to marry. The questions were posed, but no enforcement action has actually taken place. There is a difference.

Second: Their status as ministers is irrelevant. Otherwise everyone could get around every accommodation law just by claiming they're ministers. That would be absurd. If the business is, as a public accommodation, forced to perform the weddings, then it's a required part of the employees's job, and as such, if they can't/won't do it, they can't work there.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

Seems to me like this contradicts all the people who said nobody will be required to conduct gay weddings.

It's not the church, though.This is no different than forcing a justice of the peace.

Is an ordained minister a government official? No.

I don't think that you can claim that a for-profit business is the same as a church. If they want to be treated like a church, then they should operate as a charity. If they choose to operate as a business because they want/need the money, then they also have to accept regulations (including nondiscrimination policies) that are imposed on businesses.

Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.

"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

Seems to me like this contradicts all the people who said nobody will be required to conduct gay weddings.

It's not the church, though.This is no different than forcing a justice of the peace.

Is an ordained minister a government official? No.

That's not the legal issue or precedent in play.There are protected classes, and you cannot deny them services, if you are open to the public. (I am guessing this is the case in Oregon, as it is in other states, like Colorado) Therefore, as a business owner, you cannot deny service to a protected class, simply because they are a protected class.

As the article clearly states, the place is a for-profit business and the ministers aren't government officials and can't marry anyone- they preside over a wedding which is ritual, and not legally binding marriage.

Seems to me like this contradicts all the people who said nobody will be required to conduct gay weddings.

It's not the church, though.This is no different than forcing a justice of the peace.

Well, I suppose a tad different, but given the current laws, no difference.If private businesses were not "public accommodations", there would be a difference.

When Churches operate for-profit, they should be treated as for-profit corporations. As such, they should be subject to all pertinent nondiscrimination law in a given jurisdiction.

If they want to cry free speech to protected their archaically bigoted attitudes, then they should operate in a not-for-profit fashion.

There's that liberal tolerance shining through.

The irony here is that the one thing liberals don't tolerate is intolerance. By this I mean that liberals like myself cannot condone bigotry and discrimination displayed towards people due to immutable characteristics. Or, would you have us condone racism, sexism, ageism, etc. as well as homophobia?

Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.

"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

Seems to me like this contradicts all the people who said nobody will be required to conduct gay weddings.

They are a for-profit business, as the article explicitly notes.

"For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit," Warren Wilson with the Coeur d"Alene City Attorney"s Office said"."

"If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you"re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation," Wilson said."

It also says "in theory"-- it's a grey area of law, at present, and no one has been prosecuted. So they are not required to, nor are we certain they will be. But even if they are, they are not ministers in the sense of running a church, which is not an area of public accomodation, but rather in running a wedding business, which is something else entirely.

The issue is not the institution being forced to do so (although I would argue that is wrong as well). The problem is that the ministers are now being forced to marry. Does that not seem like a problem?

First: They are NOT being forced to marry. The questions were posed, but no enforcement action has actually taken place. There is a difference.

No, there isn't. They are subject to the law and, as the lawyer stated, they are potentially subject to its rules. Which would throw them in jail and fine them $1,000 a day until they perform gay weddings.

Second: Their status as ministers is irrelevant. Otherwise everyone could get around every accommodation law just by claiming they're ministers. That would be absurd. If the business is, as a public accommodation, forced to perform the weddings, then it's a required part of the employees's job, and as such, if they can't/won't do it, they can't work there.

'Ordained minister' is not something you can claim without proof, sorry.

Seems to me like this contradicts all the people who said nobody will be required to conduct gay weddings.

It's not the church, though.This is no different than forcing a justice of the peace.

Is an ordained minister a government official? No.

That's not the legal issue or precedent in play.There are protected classes, and you cannot deny them services, if you are open to the public. (I am guessing this is the case in Oregon, as it is in other states, like Colorado) Therefore, as a business owner, you cannot deny service to a protected class, simply because they are a protected class.

Seems to me like this contradicts all the people who said nobody will be required to conduct gay weddings.

They are a for-profit business, as the article explicitly notes.

"For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit," Warren Wilson with the Coeur d"Alene City Attorney"s Office said"."

"If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you"re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation," Wilson said."

It also says "in theory"-- it's a grey area of law, at present, and no one has been prosecuted. So they are not required to, nor are we certain they will be. But even if they are, they are not ministers in the sense of running a church, which is not an area of public accomodation, but rather in running a wedding business, which is something else entirely.

The issue is not the institution being forced to do so (although I would argue that is wrong as well). The problem is that the ministers are now being forced to marry. Does that not seem like a problem?

First: They are NOT being forced to marry. The questions were posed, but no enforcement action has actually taken place. There is a difference.

No, there isn't. They are subject to the law and, as the lawyer stated, they are potentially subject to its rules. Which would throw them in jail and fine them $1,000 a day until they perform gay weddings.

Potentially =/= actually. Which was my exact point.

Second: Their status as ministers is irrelevant. Otherwise everyone could get around every accommodation law just by claiming they're ministers. That would be absurd. If the business is, as a public accommodation, forced to perform the weddings, then it's a required part of the employees's job, and as such, if they can't/won't do it, they can't work there.

'Ordained minister' is not something you can claim without proof, sorry.

It most certainly IS something you can claim pretty trivially--and honestly, rightly so, given that the government shouldn't really be in the business of deciding what "real" ordination is. That said, again, the status is irrelevant.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

Seems to me like this contradicts all the people who said nobody will be required to conduct gay weddings.

It's not the church, though.This is no different than forcing a justice of the peace.

Well, I suppose a tad different, but given the current laws, no difference.If private businesses were not "public accommodations", there would be a difference.

When Churches operate for-profit, they should be treated as for-profit corporations. As such, they should be subject to all pertinent nondiscrimination law in a given jurisdiction.

If they want to cry free speech to protected their archaically bigoted attitudes, then they should operate in a not-for-profit fashion.

There's that liberal tolerance shining through.

The irony here is that the one thing liberals don't tolerate is intolerance. By this I mean that liberals like myself cannot condone bigotry and discrimination displayed towards people due to immutable characteristics. Or, would you have us condone racism, sexism, ageism, etc. as well as homophobia?

Stop trying to rationalize why you'll only tolerate people who agree with you. I would not require you to tolerate anything - I would, however, ask you to stop lying about being tolerant when your 'tolerance' only extends to those who share the same moral views are your own.

I'll proudly say I'm not a tolerant person. I'm not tolerant towards racists, sexists, etc. I'm not the one claiming to be tolerant, however.

Seems to me like this contradicts all the people who said nobody will be required to conduct gay weddings.

They are a for-profit business, as the article explicitly notes.

"For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit," Warren Wilson with the Coeur d"Alene City Attorney"s Office said"."

"If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you"re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation," Wilson said."

It also says "in theory"-- it's a grey area of law, at present, and no one has been prosecuted. So they are not required to, nor are we certain they will be. But even if they are, they are not ministers in the sense of running a church, which is not an area of public accomodation, but rather in running a wedding business, which is something else entirely.

The issue is not the institution being forced to do so (although I would argue that is wrong as well). The problem is that the ministers are now being forced to marry. Does that not seem like a problem?

First: They are NOT being forced to marry. The questions were posed, but no enforcement action has actually taken place. There is a difference.

No, there isn't. They are subject to the law and, as the lawyer stated, they are potentially subject to its rules. Which would throw them in jail and fine them $1,000 a day until they perform gay weddings.

Potentially =/= actually. Which was my exact point.

If the law is in place, it is the job of the government to enforce it. Do you not agree?

Second: Their status as ministers is irrelevant. Otherwise everyone could get around every accommodation law just by claiming they're ministers. That would be absurd. If the business is, as a public accommodation, forced to perform the weddings, then it's a required part of the employees's job, and as such, if they can't/won't do it, they can't work there.

'Ordained minister' is not something you can claim without proof, sorry.

It most certainly IS something you can claim pretty trivially--and honestly, rightly so, given that the government shouldn't really be in the business of deciding what "real" ordination is. That said, again, the status is irrelevant.

Ordination is a process handed out by individual churches. I'm pretty sure claiming to be an ordained minister when you are not actually an ordained minister would be legal fraud.

At 10/20/2014 3:08:30 PM, bsh1 wrote:If they want to cry free speech to protected their archaically bigoted attitudes, then they should operate in a not-for-profit fashion.

There's that liberal tolerance shining through.

The irony here is that the one thing liberals don't tolerate is intolerance. By this I mean that liberals like myself cannot condone bigotry and discrimination displayed towards people due to immutable characteristics. Or, would you have us condone racism, sexism, ageism, etc. as well as homophobia?

Stop trying to rationalize why you'll only tolerate people who agree with you. I would not require you to tolerate anything - I would, however, ask you to stop lying about being tolerant when your 'tolerance' only extends to those who share the same moral views are your own.

TN05, I do not just tolerate those who agree with me. I tolerate a wide variety of beliefs, and accusing me of rationalizing why I only tolerate people with my ideological bent isn't kind, truthful, or productive.

I'll proudly say I'm not a tolerant person. I'm not tolerant towards racists, sexists, etc. I'm not the one claiming to be tolerant, however.

Then why aren't you intolerant of those who would discriminate against gay people?

Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.

"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

If the law is in place, it is the job of the government to enforce it. Do you not agree?

It will come down to a question of interpretation. Thus, claiming they're forced now, when no enforcement action has been taken and when the judiciary has not given an interpretation, is premature.

Second: Their status as ministers is irrelevant. Otherwise everyone could get around every accommodation law just by claiming they're ministers. That would be absurd. If the business is, as a public accommodation, forced to perform the weddings, then it's a required part of the employees's job, and as such, if they can't/won't do it, they can't work there.

'Ordained minister' is not something you can claim without proof, sorry.

It most certainly IS something you can claim pretty trivially--and honestly, rightly so, given that the government shouldn't really be in the business of deciding what "real" ordination is. That said, again, the status is irrelevant.

Ordination is a process handed out by individual churches. I'm pretty sure claiming to be an ordained minister when you are not actually an ordained minister would be legal fraud.

And not only can you start your own "church", you can also go to a rubber-stamp ordination service--which is why I included the google link for you, that you appear not to have actually looked at. It's a trivial process that doesn't require fraud.

And, again, their status as ordained ministers is irrelevant.

If this were a burger joint, and a minister worked there and decided he didn't want to serve the sons of Ham/Canaan, but public accommodation laws meant that all races had to be accepted at the burger joint, would the "minister" status be relevant? I would say: No, no it would not. It's utterly and completely irrelevant. Ministers do not get special rights in terms of following the law just by virtue of being ministers. Churches get special rights, when they're not businesses that are public accommodations, and they can extend that to their ministers depending on the church. In this case, it's not really a church--it's a wedding business.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 10/20/2014 3:08:30 PM, bsh1 wrote:If they want to cry free speech to protected their archaically bigoted attitudes, then they should operate in a not-for-profit fashion.

There's that liberal tolerance shining through.

The irony here is that the one thing liberals don't tolerate is intolerance. By this I mean that liberals like myself cannot condone bigotry and discrimination displayed towards people due to immutable characteristics. Or, would you have us condone racism, sexism, ageism, etc. as well as homophobia?

Stop trying to rationalize why you'll only tolerate people who agree with you. I would not require you to tolerate anything - I would, however, ask you to stop lying about being tolerant when your 'tolerance' only extends to those who share the same moral views are your own.

TN05, I do not just tolerate those who agree with me. I tolerate a wide variety of beliefs, and accusing me of rationalizing why I only tolerate people with my ideological bent isn't kind, truthful, or productive.

What beliefs outside of your own, and those to the left of you, do you tolerate? Which ones do you not tolerate?

I'll proudly say I'm not a tolerant person. I'm not tolerant towards racists, sexists, etc. I'm not the one claiming to be tolerant, however.

Then why aren't you intolerant of those who would discriminate against gay people?

I am intolerant of them, the word 'discrimination' just means two different things to you and me. I'm intolerant of backwards Middle Eastern countries for executing people for being gay. I'm intolerant of restaurants or other businesses that would turn away people just because they are gay. I'm intolerant of Westboro Baptist Church.

I do not, however, think it is intolerant of a church or minister to not be involved or be host to a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, or for a store owner or employee to not want to provide a service to a gay marriage ceremony, due to their personal religious beliefs. That example is a very thin, narrow exemption.

If the law is in place, it is the job of the government to enforce it. Do you not agree?

It will come down to a question of interpretation. Thus, claiming they're forced now, when no enforcement action has been taken and when the judiciary has not given an interpretation, is premature.

I disagree but we'll see. The law is the law and it will be enforced.

Second: Their status as ministers is irrelevant. Otherwise everyone could get around every accommodation law just by claiming they're ministers. That would be absurd. If the business is, as a public accommodation, forced to perform the weddings, then it's a required part of the employees's job, and as such, if they can't/won't do it, they can't work there.

'Ordained minister' is not something you can claim without proof, sorry.

It most certainly IS something you can claim pretty trivially--and honestly, rightly so, given that the government shouldn't really be in the business of deciding what "real" ordination is. That said, again, the status is irrelevant.

Ordination is a process handed out by individual churches. I'm pretty sure claiming to be an ordained minister when you are not actually an ordained minister would be legal fraud.

And not only can you start your own "church", you can also go to a rubber-stamp ordination service--which is why I included the google link for you, that you appear not to have actually looked at. It's a trivial process that doesn't require fraud.

Now you are going into illogical extremes.

And, again, their status as ordained ministers is irrelevant.

No, it isn't.

If this were a burger joint, and a minister worked there and decided he didn't want to serve the sons of Ham/Canaan, but public accommodation laws meant that all races had to be accepted at the burger joint, would the "minister" status be relevant? I would say: No, no it would not. It's utterly and completely irrelevant. Ministers do not get special rights in terms of following the law just by virtue of being ministers. Churches get special rights, when they're not businesses that are public accommodations, and they can extend that to their ministers depending on the church. In this case, it's not really a church--it's a wedding business.

What relevance does being a minister have to not serving relatives of someone? Nothing. However, in this case, the role of minister is directly related to the service being provided (religious marriage ceremony).

At 10/20/2014 3:08:30 PM, bsh1 wrote:If they want to cry free speech to protected their archaically bigoted attitudes, then they should operate in a not-for-profit fashion.

There's that liberal tolerance shining through.

The irony here is that the one thing liberals don't tolerate is intolerance. By this I mean that liberals like myself cannot condone bigotry and discrimination displayed towards people due to immutable characteristics. Or, would you have us condone racism, sexism, ageism, etc. as well as homophobia?

Stop trying to rationalize why you'll only tolerate people who agree with you. I would not require you to tolerate anything - I would, however, ask you to stop lying about being tolerant when your 'tolerance' only extends to those who share the same moral views are your own.

TN05, I do not just tolerate those who agree with me. I tolerate a wide variety of beliefs, and accusing me of rationalizing why I only tolerate people with my ideological bent isn't kind, truthful, or productive.

What beliefs outside of your own, and those to the left of you, do you tolerate? Which ones do you not tolerate?

Far too many to list. It is simpler just to say I do not tolerate beliefs that discriminate against people for immutable characteristics.

I'll proudly say I'm not a tolerant person. I'm not tolerant towards racists, sexists, etc. I'm not the one claiming to be tolerant, however.

Then why aren't you intolerant of those who would discriminate against gay people?

I am intolerant of them, the word 'discrimination' just means two different things to you and me. I'm intolerant of backwards Middle Eastern countries for executing people for being gay. I'm intolerant of restaurants or other businesses that would turn away people just because they are gay. I'm intolerant of Westboro Baptist Church.

Since the article was talking about a BUSINESS, it seems you would agree that they shouldn't turn people away.

Being a minister isn't an excuse for intolerance. If you run a business, you are subject to the rules that govern all businesses. Just because you are religious doesn't give you a free pass.

Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.

"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

If the law is in place, it is the job of the government to enforce it. Do you not agree?

It will come down to a question of interpretation. Thus, claiming they're forced now, when no enforcement action has been taken and when the judiciary has not given an interpretation, is premature.

I disagree but we'll see. The law is the law and it will be enforced.

You disagree that the judiciary interprets the law?

Second: Their status as ministers is irrelevant. Otherwise everyone could get around every accommodation law just by claiming they're ministers. That would be absurd. If the business is, as a public accommodation, forced to perform the weddings, then it's a required part of the employees's job, and as such, if they can't/won't do it, they can't work there.

'Ordained minister' is not something you can claim without proof, sorry.

It most certainly IS something you can claim pretty trivially--and honestly, rightly so, given that the government shouldn't really be in the business of deciding what "real" ordination is. That said, again, the status is irrelevant.

Ordination is a process handed out by individual churches. I'm pretty sure claiming to be an ordained minister when you are not actually an ordained minister would be legal fraud.

And not only can you start your own "church", you can also go to a rubber-stamp ordination service--which is why I included the google link for you, that you appear not to have actually looked at. It's a trivial process that doesn't require fraud.

Now you are going into illogical extremes.

Not in the slightest. How is it an illogical extreme? There are people that use those services NOW. I've known several of them. If a ruling came down saying that ministers could ignore accommodation laws, I don't think it's a slippery slope to argue that people would then follow the law--and become ministers for the purposes of ignoring accommodation laws (for example: Bakers and photographers).

And, again, their status as ordained ministers is irrelevant.

No, it isn't.

Why is it relevant? Do ministers get special rights, more so than the average person?

If this were a burger joint, and a minister worked there and decided he didn't want to serve the sons of Ham/Canaan, but public accommodation laws meant that all races had to be accepted at the burger joint, would the "minister" status be relevant? I would say: No, no it would not. It's utterly and completely irrelevant. Ministers do not get special rights in terms of following the law just by virtue of being ministers. Churches get special rights, when they're not businesses that are public accommodations, and they can extend that to their ministers depending on the church. In this case, it's not really a church--it's a wedding business.

What relevance does being a minister have to not serving relatives of someone? Nothing. However, in this case, the role of minister is directly related to the service being provided (religious marriage ceremony).

Sons of Ham is a way of saying "black people" (though interpretations vary). And you are incorrect, as it's the secular aspect of the religious ceremony that would be at issue. If they, in their roles as licensed to provide wedding licenses, gave those and were willing to have ceremonies, but weren't willing to do it religiously, I wager they'd win on religious grounds. But that's entirely different than just being forced to marry them in general in accordance with the laws of the state.

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 10/20/2014 3:08:30 PM, bsh1 wrote:If they want to cry free speech to protected their archaically bigoted attitudes, then they should operate in a not-for-profit fashion.

There's that liberal tolerance shining through.

The irony here is that the one thing liberals don't tolerate is intolerance. By this I mean that liberals like myself cannot condone bigotry and discrimination displayed towards people due to immutable characteristics. Or, would you have us condone racism, sexism, ageism, etc. as well as homophobia?

Stop trying to rationalize why you'll only tolerate people who agree with you. I would not require you to tolerate anything - I would, however, ask you to stop lying about being tolerant when your 'tolerance' only extends to those who share the same moral views are your own.

TN05, I do not just tolerate those who agree with me. I tolerate a wide variety of beliefs, and accusing me of rationalizing why I only tolerate people with my ideological bent isn't kind, truthful, or productive.

What beliefs outside of your own, and those to the left of you, do you tolerate? Which ones do you not tolerate?

I'll proudly say I'm not a tolerant person. I'm not tolerant towards racists, sexists, etc. I'm not the one claiming to be tolerant, however.

Then why aren't you intolerant of those who would discriminate against gay people?

I am intolerant of them, the word 'discrimination' just means two different things to you and me. I'm intolerant of backwards Middle Eastern countries for executing people for being gay. I'm intolerant of restaurants or other businesses that would turn away people just because they are gay. I'm intolerant of Westboro Baptist Church.

I do not, however, think it is intolerant of a church or minister to not be involved or be host to a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs, or for a store owner or employee to not want to provide a service to a gay marriage ceremony, due to their personal religious beliefs. That example is a very thin, narrow exemption.

Being intolerant of incomprehensibly bigoted people is nothing to be proud of.

"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."